Skip to content

Navigating Canada’s sanctions against Russia: New guidance on ownership and control of an entity

By Kim Walsh and Olivia Bungay

Canadian sanctions targeting Russia in relation to Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine were significantly expanded over the past year.

Critical to compliance with Canada’s sanctions targeting Russia, individuals and businesses must determine whether they are dealing in property owned or controlled by a designated person under Schedule 1 of the Special Economic Measures (Russia) Regulations. The Regulations prohibit dealing in property of any kind that is owned, held or controlled by a designated person, regardless of where the property is located.

As it stands, there is no formal guidance on what qualifies as ownership or control in the context of Canadian economic sanctions. The result is ambiguity and confusion in efforts to avoid breaching the Regulations, particularly when dealing with companies that may be either indirectly or partly owned/controlled by a shareholder that is a designated person.

The first Court interpretation of ownership and control in the context of sanctions was the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta decision Angophora Holdings Limited v Ovsyankin, 2022 ABKC 711. In that case, Angophora was a subsidiary wholly owned by a private equity fund equally owned by two banks. One of the owners, Gazprombank, was a Russian bank that was listed as a designated person. The Court was tasked with determining whether Angophora was controlled by, or acting on behalf of, Gazprombank. Absent a definition of controlled by or acting on behalf of a designated person, the Court held that control should be assessed as a factual issue determined by the circumstances, particularly focusing on whether there is de facto control. The Court considered the following factors to find that there was a strong prima facie case that Angophora was controlled by or acting on behalf of Gazprombank:

  1. Corporate decision-making in Angophora required unanimity between both owners’ nominees, which allowed Gazprombank to prevent actions from being taken,
  2. Gazprombank exerted a high level of functional control over Angophora and was integrated in its affairs, and
  3. The corporate structure of Angophora met the U.S. sanction law definition of control (i.e. 50% or more of Angophora was indirectly owned by Gazprombank).

Angophora is currently the only interpretation on ownership and control in Canadian economic sanctions laws, however further guidance is coming. The Canadian Government has recently introduced Bill C-47 (the 2023 Budget Implementation Act) which, if passed, will amend its economic sanctions laws to include criteria for ownership and control.

The Bill, as drafted, will deem a designated person to control an entity if:

  • the person holds, directly or indirectly, 50% or more of the shares or ownership interests in the entity or 50% or more of the voting rights in the entity;
  • the person is able, directly or indirectly, to change the composition or powers of the entity’s board of directors; or
  • it is reasonable to conclude, having regard to all the circumstances, that the person is able, directly or indirectly and through any means, to direct the entity’s activities.

Moreover, the Bill introduces a deeming provision which states that a person who controls an entity according to the criteria above will be deemed to own it.

If passed, Bill C-47 will provide more guidance on the issue of ownership and control in terms of compliance with Canadian sanctions. However, the draft legislation itself provides insight into the relevant factors that indicate control.

Sanctioned ship-owners continue to leverage the use of obscure ownership structures, shell companies registered in third countries, and reflagging tactics to evade sanctions. Businesses should conduct due diligence based on these guiding factors to ensure that they are not dealing in property owned or controlled by designated persons. Special caution should be allotted to identify beneficial owners, or those with indirect control over an entity.

This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact the author.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.



Search Archive


“Sale” away: The SCC’s more flexible approach to exclusion clauses in contracts for the sale of goods

July 9, 2024

By Jennifer Taylor & Marina Luro A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision has clarified how to interpret exclusion clauses in sale of goods contracts. The Court in Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v Pine Valley…

Read More

Recent case re-confirms temporary ailment is not a disability

June 24, 2024

By Mark Tector and Tiegan A. Scott Decision On April 3, 2024, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (“ABKB”) upheld a decision of the Chief of the Commissions and Tribunals (the “CCT Decision”), which held…

Read More

Compensation for expropriation: Fair, but not more than fair

June 17, 2024

By Erin Best, Stephen Penney, Robert Bradley, Megan Kieley1 and Elizabeth Fleet1 Expropriation is a live issue in Canadian courts. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to broaden the test for constructive expropriation in Annapolis…

Read More

Changes affecting federally regulated employers

June 10, 2024

By Killian McParland and Sophie Poulos There have been many changes in recent months affecting employers governed by federal labour and employment laws. In September 2024, Stewart McKelvey will be hosting a webinar to review…

Read More

Impending changes to Nova Scotia’s Workers’ Compensation Act – Gradual onset stress

June 4, 2024

By Mark Tector and Annie Gray What’s changing? Currently, workers’ compensation coverage in Nova Scotia applies to only a narrow subset of psychological injuries. Specifically, in Nova Scotia – as in all Atlantic Provinces –…

Read More

Appeal Courts uphold substantial costs awards for regulators

May 22, 2024

By Sean Kelly & Michiko Gartshore Professional regulators can incur substantial costs through discipline processes. These costs are often associated with investigations, hearings as well as committee member expenses and are an unfortunate by-product of…

Read More

Less than two weeks to go … Canada Supply Chain Transparency Reports are due May 31st

May 21, 2024

By Christine Pound, ICD.D., Twila Reid, ICD.D., Sarah Dever Letson, CIPP/C, Sheila Mecking, Hilary Newman, and Daniel Roth Introduction The first reports under the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the…

Read More

Court upheld municipality’s refusal to disclose investigation report

May 1, 2024

By Sheila Mecking and Sarah Dever Letson A recent decision out of the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick,[1] upheld the Municipality of Tantramar’s decision to withhold a Workplace Assessment Report under section 20(1)…

Read More

Occupational Health and Safety sentencing decision – Nova Scotia

April 29, 2024

By Sean Kelly & Tiegan Scott Earlier this month, the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia issued its sentencing decision in R v The Brick Warehouse LP, 2024 NSPC 26, imposing a monetary penalty of $143,750 (i.e.,…

Read More

Canada 2024 Federal Budget paves the way for Open Banking

April 22, 2024

By Kevin Landry On April 15, 2024, the Canadian federal budget was released. Connected to the budget was an explanation of the framework for Canada’s proposed implementation of Open Banking (sometimes called consumer-driven banking). This follows…

Read More

Search Archive

Scroll To Top